Faster than the speeding bullet and using infra red detection to locate humans’ location, SuperBushMan has been helping to guide Israel’s bombs to reach their target.

Superman has been an epitome of American’s ideals for truth and justice for so long. “As his substitute, and when those ideals change, I am adapting my nature to those ever evolving cutting edge values,” SuperBushMan clarified.

“We’re saving cash. We got bigger bangs per each missile,” Ehud added. “Hezbollah won’t give up even if we kill thousands of them. So far we can only kill 100 due to our lousy ground troops. That left killing civilian’s infrastructure as the only way left to make the enemies yield.” Ehud clarified further, “C’mon… Every body knows it.”

“Finally, someone embracing my teaching” Osama Bin Laden stated latter approvingly in his next video hit. Osama expressed anger over his businessman twin brother that died in the attack. “I think businessmen have shorter life span than terrorist overlords. If only he stops being a businessman and join my path,” Osama lamented. “It’s his fault. In the world we live in now, you should start terrorists business rather than banking business. There’s more money. You’re more powerful to reject threat. Innocence don’t pay. Terrorists on all sides can simply come up with various excuses to kill you anyway.”

SuperBushMan then justified his action, “I am defending innocents. What a better way to do so than defending people’s right to defend them self by making the process more cost efficient,”

Ali then hit SuperBushMan with a flying round house tiger cane shadow meld jihad kick that could have been deathly to most people. SuperBushMan then bites off Ali’s head in self defense to provide samples he wanted the rest of us to follow.

“Yummy,” said SuperBushMan.

“Fuck, I am joining the Nazi,” said Karl, Ali’s neighbor that is spared the bombing because he was visiting his mom in German. “It could have been me,” Karl added. Hassan, Ali’s other neighbor, is joining Al Qaeda shortly after.

“That’s actually a good thing,” said Ehud Olmert. “Some twenty years from now, I’ll have more excuse to self defending every belligerent men’s right to kill all civilians in the world.”

“With SuperBushMan vetoing all the countries in UN, when else I can do this stuff? By failing to prevent the kidnapping of some soldiers, the pro free market Lebanese civilians try to bring the whole world into another world war. That’s why they deserve extermination” said Ehud. Ehud then added, “Kidnapping soldiers is bad okay?”

Ehud then moved on warning Lebanese not to ever give any soldiers a bad hair cut. “You’d never know what we’ll do to you because of it,” winked Ehud.

Most political analyst thinks that it’s only so bad if you don’t have enough SAM sites against jet fighters suggesting more weapon expenditures from all sides.”

Ehud then explained further, “Actually, buying those land is cheaper than buying jet planes, but I got more support back home doing it this way.”

“Hail Ehud!” cries hordes of Zealot extremists raising their right arm and clasping their heels.

He added, “I prefer some long life time sentences that’ll motivate his friend to capture some soldiers to free him causing all this exciting opportunities to keep military generals on payroll. It’s not the terrorists that must die. It’s everyone else in both sides.”

“By choosing not to bring Samir to death penalty, even at the huge costs of money, and civilians on both sides, Israel governments show that they hold the sanctity of humans’ life even for those least deserving it,” continue SuperBushMan. “Imagine how well they value the life of those more deserving it than Samir?” SuperBushMan reasoned.

“But of course, peaceful businessmen and soldiers are subhumans that have less priority to live than even a vile terrorist, so it’s okay to kill thousands of them than to kill a convicted mass murderer. Ask Stalin, Mao Tze Tung, Hitler, or any other politicians,” argued SuperBushMan.

“In fact, I am actually pro life and the sanctity that all it entails,” added SuperBushMan recalling his valiant effort to prevent removal of feeding tubes from Terry Schiavo.

Even SuperBushMan cannot prevent all crimes though.

During 9/11, when the twin towers got hit by plane, for example, Lois Lane, along with thousands of other women was kidnapped, raped, gang banged, and tortured to death by various criminals. But SuperBushMan was nowhere to be seen due to serious law enforcement somewhere else.

“USC. § 2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.

‘‘(b) MINORS.—Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years.

‘‘(c) CONSTRUCTION.—For the purposes of this section, a word or digital image that clearly indicates the sexual content of the site, such as ‘sex’ or ‘porn’, is not misleading.

‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—HR 4472 EAS

‘‘(1) the terms ‘material that is harmful to minors’ and ‘sex’ have the meaning given such terms in section 2252B; and ‘‘(2) the term ‘source code’ means the combination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a web page, including any website publishing language, programming language, protocol or functional content, as well as any successor languages or protocols.’’.

(b) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections for chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2252B the following:

‘‘2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet.”

exclaimed SuperBushMan, reciting the law by heart thanks to his super brain.

We got to protect our parents’ right to control what their kids can watch.” SuperBushMan added.

SuperBushMan then flew to beat up some mom for buying her kids some game with MA-13 VRC’s rating for his coming next birthday.

I used to think that the Jews were the good guys. Their fate is like the Chinese in Indonesia. In my image, they were nice productive businessmen that are victims of envy bigots around them.

That image gets carried into the conflicts. In my images, the Arabs, the Palestinians, and the Jews enemies, must have been either religious bigots or demonic commies.

So when Israel bombs Lebanon, my first impression is that Lebanon must be some bad countries, something like North Korea or Taliban.

I was surprised when I checked wikipedia.

Lebanon is a pro market country.

They’re more like Swiss rather than North Korea. They’re even better than US. In fact, they’re so pro market that their percapita income rose 393% within 1990s.

In war with Israel, Lebanon lost billions of dollars while Israel only lost $20 million.

Quite obviously, Lebanon is not the kind of country that “Ask for it.” This seems to be a peaceful country with reasonable intensives to be peaceful. In those countries, Muslims, and Christians live side by side in harmony.

The country also accepts a lot of Palestinians refuges causing quite some problems. Did US accept Palestinians refuges? Did the Chinese accept Jewish refuges in Second World War?

And that forces me to rethink the whole issue.

Yes the Palestinians kidnap Israelites soldiers. But before that 8 Palestinians are death due to Israelites rockets.

There is no mechanism whatsoever to neither compensate those 8 Palestinians with money nor can the Palestinians sue Israel governments for the wrongful death to get justice. Without such court like figure, the only way to prevent a party from going all the way committing Nazi like genocide is to strike back.

So the whole retaliation and self defense doctrines can actually work on both sides. It’s hard to figure out which one really strikes first. If 2 societies live side by side, surely shits happen once in a while.

If the issue is bigger, we can set an international court where any country causing wrongful death will be fined to compensate the victim. At least that way the other side knows that without striking back, the party has intensive not to keep killing.

Pro Israelites group may argue that their act is self defense. It’s more of retaliation. Speaking of retaliation, I kind of believe in an eye for an eye doctrine, or more preferably, a million bucks for an eye.

Bombing Lebanon and causing billions of dollars of damage is a highly disproportional retaliation that damages so many other innocent third parties.

I am a pro market individual. I can no longer support any people that use that size of violent against so many innocent civilians and productive businessmen.

I’ll be glad to support a mechanism where the Jews can buy lands from the Palestinians at fair price. However, if they want to kill all Palestinians for some land by poking and provocation by some sort of “Final Solution”, they’ll have better chance finding allies with more similar preferences. Try the Nazi.

Rich males want as many females as possible. That’s the whole point of getting rich. Women prefer the rich. Rich males can attract and afford more women. And that’s why many want so many laws against consensual sex. To exterminate the best and brightest, and hence, tougher competitors from the gene pool.

Polygamy allows those with under represented, hence rare and valuable, talent to survive better in the gene pool. Prostitution allow those who serve the market more to simply used the money they earn fairly to hire women to create more productive individuals.

Sex laws against consensual sex, like anti prostitution and anti polygamy is slow genocide against those who are able and willing to pay for reproduction. Those are the kind of people that won’t bother the rest of us with welfare.

Why do you think the Jews and Mormon are model minority? Where are the smart among everyone else? They’re gone, because smart monks can’t even get married.

When unproductive people want to breed 12 kids, it’s legal because it’s humans’ right. That right, of course, implies the right to force the rest of us to support their kids. Even the poor liberal often prefer to have higher standard of living than making more kids. That’s why they instinctively want drugs legalization, gay right, and “pro-choice.” We’re losing money without making them happy. It’s a highly inefficient appeasement.

Yet, when rich smart males want to beget as many kids as he can afford, then virtually all ways become immoral. The billionaires cannot just pay women for sex because of anti prostitution law. Anti polygamy laws means they cannot have more than one wife. Child support laws are set up proportional to a man’s wealth rather than the need of a child. If child support law is 20% of your income per kids, for example, then no matter how rich you are you can’t afford more than 5 kids.

All these are not very surprising, when we understand that deep inside, less capable individuals crave the extermination of those more capable than them. That’s why people like Hitler became so popular.

Contemporary definition of sin in any religion is no longer acts that hurt others. Nowadays, sins mean success. When men successfully, and honestly, make money and mate with many females, suddenly that’s sin. The same happen to men that show “unusual capability.”

That’s why the mob free Barabas and demand Jesus to be put to death. That’s why religious leaders preach forgiveness toward thieves, burglars, and murderers while demanding heavy punishment for men that successfully, honestly, and consensually make a lot of money and mate with many females.

Living as the best and brightest is best or bust. They often do things differently, which mean they can be very successful, or fail up miserably. Unless the successful among them do not make many kids, they won’t make enough kids to compensate for the failure among them. Soon, they’ll be gone. The horde of evil parasites will simply become more and more. With huge voting power, they’ll simply want more and more.

Many people believe that religions teach good stuff. Well, good or bad depends a lot on points of view. However, let’s ignore that aspect for a while.

The religious teachings are not the problem.

The problem with religion is not what it teach. The problem is in how people believe and defend the teachings.

I’ll give you an example. Say I have a scientific believe that knocking someone’s’ head with a sledge hammer will lead to higher intelligence.

I then market my “discovery” and start a doctor practice. What will happen? What happen is people will come to my practice, get killed, and die.

Now I’ll probably go to jail for killing people, but let’s ignore that aspect for a moment.

What happen is I have disproved the believe that hitting people in the head increase intelligence. I don’t hold that belief by faith. I correct my believes based on evidence. When the evidences show otherwise, I change my beliefs.

Now I no longer increases people’s IQ with sledge hammer. I increase their IQ with genetic therapy, for example. So the damage that I cause are limited.

What about if I am religious?

Well, I’ll just belief on my opinion irrelevant of the evidence. Once my patients die, I will declare that the cause is lack of faith. I will condemn those who do not belief on my one true method as heretical.

You see how the number of people that die will be much more?

We see something similar in religion. To stop corruption, for example, we would naturally demand less government interferences on consensual acts.

With less government, humans, following their nature will mainly perform acts that are mutually beneficial. This will mean that the only ways they can achieve their interests are by profiting others. We will end up profiting each other rather than killing each other.

Is that what religious leaders would prescribe? No. Religious leaders will demand that the key to end corruption is to teach religious values in schools.

That means more governments. That means governments decide how to run your life. Then the natural will happen. People will start bribing governments officials so that their life can be run more correctly. More corruption!

In fact, in Indonesia, for example, it’s not a coincidence that the most corrupt departments are religious department and education department. Apparently, corruptors know the profit made by the false statements and hence support these false notion all the way.

Then what? If religious people are scientific minded, and some are, like the liberal Muslims, or libertarian Christians, they will change their mind. But not typical religious people.

Most of them simply say that the corruptions happen due to lack of morality. That the solution of the problems are even more governments. You see why corrupt governments endorse religion so much?

When Tsunami hit Indonesia, scientifically minded people will come up with ways to build banks on the seashore. Who knows one day we will be able to generate electricity through Tsunamis. Religious people will simply say that Tsunami happened because God was mad. God was mad because you watch porn or read secular articles on the net.

Then what will happen? I don’t know. Just more oppression I guess. The next time Tsunami hits, there will be about the same number of people killed.

I must admit that religions teach many things that improve our standard of living.

Jesus, for example, taught that the greatest among us are those who serve. That’s seem like a case for capitalism. Under free trade capitalism, the greatest among us are the one providing the best services to the most customers.

This is not obvious. Imagine if you live during Genghis Khan era. You come to the great Khan and says, “Hi great Khan. I have a good book for you to read. It’s called, “Up your service.” With this book we can improve our customers’ satisfaction and hence our interests.

Gengish Khan would get really confused. That’s anachronistic. What’s the point of satisfying customers. Before capitalism, the way to get rich is to kill others, not to build better products or improving others’ satisfaction. If you wanted to get rich in ancient time, you read “Art of War in 13 Chapters.” You don’t read “Up your service.” Capitalism change that.

Is capitalism a Christian value? Well, most of us would say no. If you go to church, they’re not going to teach you to improve customer service. Church is there to teach you not to watch porn or have free sex outside life long monogamous marriage. So what happen?

What happen is, those who will lead our future to a brighter side do not resort to religions to make their point. They use sciences. Even though their acts often matches religious teachings more, they simply use science to make their point.

We don’t choose capitalism because the pope says so. We choose capitalism because we know it works. We know scientifically, empirically, theoretically, that capitalistic principles are one of the main ways to get us prosper. This while many Christians often condemn capitalists and greed.

Not only that, women prefer the rich. Under capitalism, the richest among us are those who serve. If sex is free, those who meekly serve others through capitalistic means will get richer. Then they will attract more women. Then they’ll produce more kids.

Hows’ that for “The meek shall inherit the earth,” which is another Jesus teaching? Now when did the last time you hear a born again Christian support elimination of all laws against consensual sex?

Other religions are pretty much the same. I am not familiar with Islam. However, from the little that I know, I saw a similarity. For example, proponent of low tax do not typically quote Quran. The Muslim’s bible requires the productive to pay only 2% of their income for wealth redistribution.

Proponent of low tax uses scientific findings to show how lower tax will more properly align humans’ nature to productivity for the good of all. They do not need to resort to Quran to make their point.

Proponents of free sex, often points out, that since women prefer the rich, free sex can greatly reduce disparity of wealth and improve overall prosperity. That’s because males will have strong intensives to get rich. Also, richer males will mate with more females and produce more kids. Hence, richer males will distribute his wealth to more kids. Hence every body will start of with roughly more similar chances. This will reduce disparity of wealth.

Finally, did you ever wonder why your dentists are paid too high? That’s because your dentists are under represented in the gene pool. Those with rare talents will make more money, and become abundance. When they become abundance, their talents will worth less. Again this will reduce disparity of wealth.

In fact, I’ve read that this is the reason why the Muslims’ scripture condone polygamy. Monogamy, which rations females in equal share for everyone manners to all males pretty much remove males’ main, if not sole’ intensive to make a lot money. That’s how the early Muslims could afford feeding all their poor with only 2% redistribution of wealth. All the poor are single males that are very cheap to maintain.

So people that support free sex will, arguably, move societies closer to what the Quran’s intended. Do those who support free sex use Quran’s as their justification? The usual cases are the opposites.

It’s obvious. So even though the values that the libertarian promotes tend to match the desired social norms prescribes by religious scriptures, smart well intentioned people simply resorts to science. They do not use religions as their justification to motivate us to follow their ideas.

People resorts to religious justification when they have hidden motives too embarrassing to describe openly.

For example, if sex is deregulated, then women prefer the rich. What those who fail to contribute enough to the society will do? What would those already over represented in the gene pool but still greedily make way more kids while enslaving the rest of us to support their kids would say? They will say rich are evil. They will say that deregulation of sex is evil. They will spend night and day condemning free sex and free trades oppressing productive people with better offers.

We would expect that people who are sexually unattractive to oppose free sex. It’s the same reason why those who give you bad offers oppose free trades. The real purposes are to get rid tougher competitors. It’s that simple. However, they’re not going to say, I support governments’ regulation on sex because I am sexually unattractive. Attractiveness is partly self fulfilling subjective. So what would they count on? Guess what? Religion.

Corruptors often want governments to decide what you should learn in school. That way they can corrupt more money. They can also ensure that you don’t learn the good stuff that’ll make money so you stay in poverty and hence more likely to demand more governments. This is obviously a highly unproductive acts. Yet, naturally, the corruptors want people to support their agendas. So what would political leaders often promote? Guess what? Religion.

Religions are not the only problems. Virtually all ideologies are held like religions. People just pick Communism, Nazism, fascism, democracy, without thinking ahead of what would naturally happen under all those ideologies. When people held ideologies like they held religions, then we’ll run into the same problem religions have given us.

Which comes first, chicken and egg. Some of you are philosophical and realize that eggs DNA do not change for the whole of life time and hence egg is the right answer. However, most of the time it doesn’t make any different.

Eggs cause chicken and chickens cause eggs. Both are correct. It’s not a circular argument. It’s a positive feedback system.

And those arguments are used by both the Israel and Palestine. The Hamas says that they launch rocket because Israelites kill civilians. Israelites say that they commit military operation to prevent suicide bombing.

Both sides argue that the other sides start first and that their acts are just response of demonic acts from the other sides. Both are correct. Vengeances are like chicken and eggs.

The issue is not who started it, but whether the system is positive feedback or not.

However, it’s not that bad actually.

Think it this way. Say there is no vengeance. Say we all opt for peace too much even though we have the capability to slaughter our opponents, at some costs to us. Then people will think that we’re a wussy. Then every body will beat us up.

The Jews in Medina, for example, when under siege by Muslims troops choose to surrender quickly, giving up all their lands. Within a few years, a few Jewish tribes then end up facing genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Nadir.

This goes all the way till 1945 in the hand of so many people from various religions.

The Japanese has different algorithm as is shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/47_Ronin. Here, the ronins don’t care whether they win or lose them just care about avenging their master and preserving their honor.

In a cruel world where laws are unclear, people slaughter the meekest. Those so full with evil that they don’t value their life to kill the other side is often those who survive better in the gene pool.

This honor thing then has a monetary value. It is more auspicious for people to lose some money, or even life, if they can more properly align people’s interests with theirs. That’s where our ideas of justice and honor come from, which do serve some evolutionary advantage.

So war is not too bad. Let them kill each other. Soon, once they’ve inflicted enough damage, they manage to maintain proper reputation that it doesn’t pay to fuck each other off. Then maybe there will be peace.

Love of money is root of all peace. Let’s all hope the war gets expensive enough for both sides that they start seeing peaceful solution profitable. Only then, there will be peace.

Science, as we know, is answering many questions religion and philosophy used to answer. While scientists are typically honest and objectives, religious leaders often have some points to make that are subjective and arguably manipulative.

Scientific theories are designed to be tested with evidence. Theories that we have now are theories that, at least in the past, survive the scrutiny of scientific inquiry. Understanding scientific natures, for example, will help us understand theories that will correctly predict reality more.

For example, a religious sermons might advice, “Men should not aim for pretty women, and women shouldn’t look for wealth.” It’ll usually followed by messages that humans will achieve more happiness if they follow that advice.

While the world “should” is not disprovable, science can predict whether you will indeed be happier by following religious doctrines.

According to gene centered view of evolution, the sort of genes that survive in the gene pool nowadays are the sort of genes that are doing well in the gene pool. The sort of humans that survive in the gene pool, are the sort of humans with the winning genes.

Our genes affect our preference and behavior. Our genes decide the sort of conditions that’ll make us feel happy, sad, pain, or pleasure. The sort of genes that we have are the genes that correctly tunes our preferences toward gene pool survival.

Hence, we can rationally predict, that males, with their smaller gametes will prefer to mate with as many females as possible. Females, with larger gametes will prefer to pick the highest quality male.

Preferences that are common nowadays are preferences that are proven to work in the past. For males, being rich is obviously an advantage. Rich males can bribe more women for sex. Also women that pick richer males will inherit sons with money making talent and extra wealth. Hence, we will naturally predict that:

1. Males are greedy for wealth and women.
2. Females like rich males.

Fertile and fecund females and unfertile females consume the same food. Hence, we would predict that a male that aim for a fertile female will survive better in the gene pool for the same amount of money spent. We would expect males to prefer small waist, big hips, unblemished skin, straight teeth, tada tada tada… females. In other words:

1. Males look for pretty women.
2. Women want to be as pretty as possible to signal offspring making capability.

Because our preferences are essentially pursuing happiness, we would expect the genes we have are the genes that make us happier when we commit acts that lead to gene pool survival.

So yes, men will be happier to get pretty women. Women will be happier to get rich males.

Now, if women will be happier to get rich men, the other men will be out of the gene pool. So, we would predict that the less attractive competitors will entertain beliefs that the opposites are true. And that naturally explain the religious teaching that we see.